The 10 Commandments

[Flail]

As I understand it, the 10 Commandments were communicated by a 'God' to Moses to relay to the people then living in Israel. In them 'God' is supposedly 'speaking' for Himself. One of these Commandments instructs the people of Israel that they are not to 'take any other god' before this particular god and that He is their Lord God.

If I understand these words correctly, would a logical interpretation not imply that there are other 'gods' equal to the one issuing these Commandments? Is not the statement "...shall take no other gods before me", a clear indication that,at least according to this 'God', there are other similar beings existent, ie. 'other gods'?

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Jrosemary.

The Sacred Texts link has this heading ...

The Guide for the Perplexed
by Moses Maimonides
translated by M. Friedländer
[1903]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/index.htm

... and the whole book is available if you'd like to save it to your computer, though only on chapter at a time. I was wondering if the translation is accurate because I have seen other versions than the two I listed. Sacred Text dot com is reliable as far as i am aware, though I like to make sure of sources.

[Skyangel]

Yes, I'm a Jew. I'm taking classes and being tutored in both the Hebrew of the Tanakh and modern Israeli Hebrew. No, I'm not yet fluent, but I'm gradually getting there (I hope), and I'm fortunate to have extremely knowledgable and fluent people--lay folk, rabbis and scholars--to turn to on questions like these.

By all means, back up what I've said about the uses of Elokim/elohim by asking a rabbi or scholar of Hebrew. Or just take the word of Maimonides--one of the greatest of historical Jewish scholars and commentators--who, in his Guide to the Perplexed said that every Jew should be aware of these multiple uses of the word (G-d, the angelic court, earthly rulers and judges, etc.)

Since you are the first real Jew who has any access to real Rabbis, I have had the privilege to "meet" on the net, I will trust you and take your word for it and if it makes no sense to me I will keep questioning you till what you say does make sense to me. Is that OK with you ? I don't have any problem with the word elohyim being both singular and plural since we have words like that in English too which can be either singular or plural depending on the context. The simple word "You" is one of them and even that word can be taken as both singular and plural in some contexts.

Why would Jesus use that verse? I don't know. If that portion of John has any historical value, Jesus must not have meant that he was somehow equivalent to G-d, because that verse and that whole Psalm mean just the opposite.

Again, just look at the larger context of that verse. The psalmist is envisioning G-d preparing to judge, hoping that G-d will not allow the wicked to continue their evil ways.

This is the way I perceive Psalm 82.
verse 1 is God (elohiym) judging gods ( elohiym) who are His children made in His image and likeness
verse 2 is God asking these gods how long they are going to accept the persons ( paniym) of the wicked. The way I see that is the same as saying "how long are you gods going to put on a false front and keep accepting that false front "? Think about it.
verse 3-4 is God telling them to get off their backsides and stop being lazy and go and help the needy and defend those who need defending and take them out of the "traps" or "problems" or "deceptions" they find themselves in instead of simply accepting they are in these predicaments and doing nothing about it but walking away and leaving them in their misery.
verse 5 is talking about the poor and needy in verse 4 who are in need of help those people who have been trapped by the wicked do not understand and do not know even know they are in trouble. Their whole lives are upside down and out of "whack" and they don't even realize it because they have been deceived so much.
Verse 6 is God ( elohiym) saying to His own children ( elohiym ) that they need to realize they are His children. If He is saying, "Who do you think you are?", He must be asking them to question their own opinion of themselves since He has been telling them previously to stop putting on a false front which implies they were being hypocritical and ought to know better. God is not telling them to get off their high horse but rather to get off their false humility and start acting like the gods they are as children of God instead of acting like some inferior gods.
Verse 7 tells them they will all die like Adam ( mankind of the past present and future) and fall like princes. That implies to me that they will die like any mortal but they wont be dying a dishonorable death but an honorable death like a prince. That prince to me represents Jesus, the prince of peace. God is telling all His children sons, that they will go (die) the same way as Jesus did. They are no better or worse than Jesus or Adam or any other man.
Verse 8 is God ( elohiym) telling His children, God ( elohiym ) to arise, get up off their lukewarm hypocrisy and start judging righteous judgment first about themselves and then about others and stop thinking they are better than anyone else and stop putting on a false front and stop being hypocrites and stop pretending to be what they are not regardless of whether they are pretending to be humble or pretending to be better than anyone else. He is telling them to be who they are which is children of God and to act like it.

That's the context of the Psalm! Even with G-d being portrayed here as our father, why would Jesus use that to prove he was equivalent to G-d? This verse says you're human, you're going to die the same as anyone else, and despite all your potential, look at how wickedly you're behaving and how clueless and in the dark you are.

Then it is no wonder Jesus quoted that particular scripture to the hypocrites. Were they not clueless and in the dark? Were they not judging him unrighteously and judging themselves as being better than Him in the process ? When the hypocrites were accusing Jesus of blaspheming and trying to make Himself equal with God, were they not placing themselves in the place of God in judgment of Him? All Jesus was saying to them is that He was no better than they are and they were also no better than He is and to stop thinking they were. We are all the same since God our Father created us all equally in His image and equal to Himself. God Himself made Himself the lowest and least of all and so we need to realize we are just as low if we wish to be anywhere near equal to God who made Himself the lowest and most hated and despised of all so He could make us equal to Him by becoming equal to us.
God became the lowest of lowest of all men to make the lowest of lowest of men feel equal to God. He made us equal to Him. It is not about us making ourselves equal to anyone. It is about Him making Himself equal to us.

I certainly don't get why Jesus would quote this if he was trying to prove he was equivalent to G-d. I'd go to a Christian scholar on this one.

Because the hypocrites were perceiving God as the devil and accusing Jesus of being of the devil and Jesus basically told them they were correct and their father was indeed the devil. He was the one they were looking at and calling the devil. He was the lowest of the low and made Himself that low so those who think they are better than he is can judge Him and in doing so they judge themselves at the same time.

If you want to interpret it as the potential we can live up to, I'd to some extent agree. But to interpret these verse--whether it uses the word elohiym for us or not (and it most probably does; I'll look it up for you tomorrow when I'm back home)--as being equivalent to G-d seems like a serious misunderstanding. More like G-d's children who should behave better--I'll go with you on that.

Since Gods children can never sin anyway,( 1 john 3:9 ) how can we behave any better than we already do? We can't be any better than we already are. The thing we need to understand is that we can be as low as we wish to be or as high as we wish to be. The choice is ours alone and no matter how high or low we think we are we need to realize we are no better and no worse than the next person. To judge righteous judgment is to judge others the same as we judge ourselves and judge ourselves the same as we judge others. That is how God judges us and that is how God allowed us to judge Him. That is the example He set. In the same way Jesus judged us, we also should judge ourselves and each other. The judgment He gave is to forgive because we know not what we do. We are clueless so in order to get a clue we need to first realize we are clueless and then stop being clueless by getting some wisdom and understanding.

[Jrosemary]

Hi Skyangel,

I think when I read this psalm earlier, I was going off the assumption that those 'judging perversely' were somehow us humans; human judges and rulers of nations (a possible translation of elohim.) And the Psalm's attitude toward these judges was, to put it mildly, hostile!

But upon reading your post, and then rereading the Psalm, it's pretty clearly that G-d is indeed judging a heavenly court of other gods . . . He's not judging human judges or rulers at all. These elohim are not equivalent to us humans in any sense.

This is the interpretation of mainstream Judaism (as explained below.) This isn't G-d taking human judges to task for not helping the orphan and the poor . . . except that, by extension, human judges might also want to be wary of G-d's wrath. This psalm is G-d taking other 'elohim' in the sense of other gods to task. G-d (here called Elokim, meaning G-d, and Ely-n, meaning the Most High) is showing His power over the other gods by 'demoting' them and His righteousness by punishing them for their wickedness.

The good news is we humans are off the hook in this one! Well, not quite, since the Psalm clearly values those who take care of the orphan, and the poor and the needy, etc. So, again, by extension, those are traits we should all practice. But we humans aren't the target in this Psalm; this one is all about G-d vs. the gods. And those other gods have turned out to be not gods at all, but as finite as mortals.

I looked this up in the Jewish Study Bible, and it says pretty much the same:

A vision of a heavenly court scene where G-d condemns those who judge unfairly. The psalm plays on the word [Elokim/elohim] which means "G-d" as well as "divine beings" [and gods]. The notion that other divine beings exist is found elsewhere in the Bible. In later biblical thought these beings serve as ministering angels to G-d and are never equal to G-d. (Ps. 89: 5-8)

An earlier view is reflected, and then rejected, in this psalm, according to which the divine beings each represent one nation, serving as that nation's protector, a remnant of the idea that the world was populated by many gods, each assigned to a different nation. (Deut. 4:19 and 32:8, according to LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

This Psalm forcefully rejects the idea of other gods; G-d deprives them of their divinity and He alone has dominion over all nations.

With that in mind, here's the Psalm in its entirety:

G-d stands in the divine assembly;
among the divine beings He pronounces
judgment.
How long will you judge perversely,
showing favor to the wicked?
Judge the wretched and the orphan,
vindicate the lowly and the poor,
rescue the wretched and the needy;
save them from the hand of the wicked.

They neither know nor understand,
they go about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth totter.
I had taken you for divine beings,
sons of the Most High, all of y ou'
but you shall die as men do,
fall like any prince.

Arise, O G-d, judge the earth,
for all nations are Your possession.

So the Jewish Study Bible can be trusted to give us the usual Jewish interpretation of that Psalm. And it makes sense and holds together.

But by this interpretation, at no point are we humans the elohim in this--it's not referring to human judges or rulers at all. Yeah, we can heed the warning by extension and do a better job of taking care of the needy, but we're not the ones that G-d is demoting/destroying here.

Now, re the Gospel of John: full disclosure, it's no favorite of mine. I don't think it's historic; the Jesus presented there is too different from the Jesus of the Synoptics. Moreover, it seems to present "the Jews" as the bad guy at every turn. I find it hard enough to deal with what I perceive as the anti-Jewish passages in Matthew; I find the anti-Jewish sentiments in John just as unsettling and more numerous.

At any event, I still think you should speak with a respected Christian scholar about what Jesus was getting at in the Gospel of John by quoting this verse. Your ultimate interpretation is wildly different than most Jewish interpretations would be. According to this standard Jewish way of interpreting what is, after all, Jewish Scripture, Jesus's use of this in John doesn't make much sense that I can see.

Although, in fairness, Judaism has its own share of mystical interpretations of Scripture--but that's when you get into the Zohar and such . . . and then you get really hardcore mysticism. But I don't know much about the Zohar, so I'm the wrong person to ask about it. I have nothing against i,t mind; the part of me that loves Hinduism also instinctively loves Jewish mysticism. (They have much in common, like reincarnation and, in some cases, even monism, wherein not only is G-d one, but everything is G-d.) But, like I said, it's hardcore stuff, and I don't have the time to study it at present.

Despite rivalling interpretations, I hope this helped!

[Murad]

Now, although the word "Jew" is a later word and didn't exist in Abraham and Sarah's time, Abraham and Sarah are still the parents of the Jewish people and, as far as we're concerned, full members of the tribe. G-d called Abraham to leave his home and to become the father of a particular people. That people is us, the Jews. That is the Jewish interpretation of this Jewish Scripture

Abraham was also the father of Ishmail which is the father of the arabs(original muslims) So i guess we all trace our religious origins from him.

However, I think HaShem also has a covenant with Christians and a covenant with Muslims. So, per their own covenant with HaShem (and per their respect for Moses) Muslims are, like Jews, forbidden pork, even if they're not obligated by every mitzvah that applies to Jews.

I remember reading an article by a rabbi that said in his opinion muhammad(pbuh) was a prophet for the muslims and not for the jews, which is similar ideology that you share.

Although this has its logic, all muslims will disagree with the concept.

There is a difference between a 'prophet' and a 'messenger'
A prophet reinforces the religious laws and a messenger brings new religious laws.
In the times before muhammad, we muslims consider Judaism to be the perfect monotheistic religion. But we believe moses(pbuh) was not the last messenger(law maker), but muhammad(pbuh) was. Although there were many other prophets after moses, we believe only Jesus was a messenger(gospel) before muhammad. So as you can see we believe as time progressed new religious laws were brought forth therefore the ones before were fulfilled.


"Those who follow the Messenger, the unschooled one, who has been described in the Torah and Gospel with them…"- Quran

If your interested, we muslims believe muhammad(pbuh) was foretold in 'Deuteronomy 18:18'. More Info:
http://www.islamicinsights.com/religion ... bible.html

Also since Jews dont accept Jesus(pbuh) as the messiah, the Jews will accept another man to be the messiah, and this is where it gets very tricky.
Christians and muslims believe this messiah will be the anti-christ(dajjal)
And there will be numerous wars with Jews, Christians and Muslims, all in the name of the messiah.

So no i dont think Allah/Hashem wanted us to kill each other and therefore he made multiple covenants.

[Jester]

Moved thread the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum

[Jrosemary]

Now, although the word "Jew" is a later word and didn't exist in Abraham and Sarah's time, Abraham and Sarah are still the parents of the Jewish people and, as far as we're concerned, full members of the tribe. G-d called Abraham to leave his home and to become the father of a particular people. That people is us, the Jews. That is the Jewish interpretation of this Jewish Scripture

Abraham was also the father of Ishmael which is the father of the arabs(original muslims) So i guess we all trace our religious origins from him.

Quite true. According to our Scripture, G-d promised Hagar (Ishmael's mother) that Ishmael would become the father of a great nation of his own, distinct from the Jews/Israelites. So that makes Jews and Muslims siblings or, as is sometimes said in Hebrew, "cousins." There's a definite family relationship.

However, I think HaShem also has a covenant with Christians and a covenant with Muslims. So, per their own covenant with HaShem (and per their respect for Moses) Muslims are, like Jews, forbidden pork, even if they're not obligated by every mitzvah that applies to Jews.

I remember reading an article by a rabbi that said in his opinion muhammad(pbuh) was a prophet for the muslims and not for the jews, which is similar ideology that you share.

Although this has its logic, all muslims will disagree with the concept.

There is a difference between a 'prophet' and a 'messenger'
A prophet reinforces the religious laws and a messenger brings new religious laws.
In the times before muhammad, we muslims consider Judaism to be the perfect monotheistic religion. But we believe moses(pbuh) was not the last messenger(law maker), but muhammad(pbuh) was. Although there were many other prophets after moses, we believe only Jesus was a messenger(gospel) before muhammad. So as you can see we believe as time progressed new religious laws were brought forth therefore the ones before were fulfilled.


"Those who follow the Messenger, the unschooled one, who has been described in the Torah and Gospel with them…"- Quran

If your interested, we muslims believe muhammad(pbuh) was foretold in 'Deuteronomy 18:18'. More Info:
http://www.islamicinsights.com/religion ... bible.html

I'll just copy what I said in the other thread about this verse:

Jews have occassionally interpreted Deuteronomy 18:18 as a prediction of the Messiah, but the more mainstream interpretation is to see it as G-d's promise that even though Moses is going to die (quite shortly), G-d will continue to raise up prophets for the people. The prophets answer only to G-d, not to any institution. But woe to anyone who pretends to be a prophet.

Here's the verse in context. Moses is speaking to the people, recounting what G-d told him:

HaShem your G-d will raise up for you a prophet from among your own brothers, like myself; him you shall heed. This is just what you asked of HaShem your G-d at Horeb, on the day of the Assembly saying, "Let me not hear the voice of HaShem my G-d any longer or see this wondrous fire any more, lest I die."

Whereupon HaShem said to me, "They have done well speaking thus. I will raise up a prophet for them from among their brothers, like yourself: I will put My words in his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him, and if anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in My name, I Myself will call him to account.

But any prophet who presumes to speak in My name an oracle that I did not command him to utter, or who speaks in the name of other gods--that prophet shall die. And should you ask yourselves, "How can we know that the oracle was not spoken by HaShem?"--if the prophet speaks in the name of HaShem and the oracle does not come true, that oracle was not spoken by HaShem; the prophet has uttered it presumptiously; do not stand in dread of him.

~Deuteronomy 18:15-18:22

So, in this interpretation, even though the word 'prophet' is singularly, it's used in a distributive way. The people wanted a prophet to be their spokesperson; one person from among them that could hear G-d's word and "see this wondrous fire" without risking death from being so close to G-d's power. HaShem approved; so what follows is assurance that even though Moses himself will die--and die soon--HaShem will raise up a prophet from among the people themselves, and will continue to do so in order that someone among this people is able to hear G-d's voice.

And that's the sense in which Jews usually interpret "among their brothers;" just a reference to the general Isralite people.

Anyway, a warning against false prophets then follows, lest anyone get carried away with the thought that he's a prophet like Moses.

During the rabbinic period, mainstream Judaism saw the prophetic period as ended. I think the feeling is that HaShem has given us the Torah, after all, so we turn to that instead of prophets.

So, again, the mainstream interpretation of this verse is that it does not refer to one particular prophet, but only to a promise that even after Moses dies, there will still be someone among the Israelites who can speak with HaShem directly; HaShem will continuously provide them. And while Moses says these people will be "like him," Jews have collectively decided that no prophet is ever really "like Moses." Moses, to us, remains the greatest of them.

From this standpoint, none of this affects Muhammed one way or the other. Jews are free to believe--and many do, including the rabbi you spoke of--that Muhammed was a prophet to Muslims. (And I go along with that; it's in keeping with my multiple-covenants view, which I know you disagree with!)

As for the 'brothers'--like I said above, this seems just to be referring to the Jewish people/Israelites. But, in a larger sense, I think it's obvious that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all make up one family of religions, and to regard each other as siblings and/or cousins seems only natural.

Also since Jews dont accept Jesus(pbuh) as the messiah, the Jews will accept another man to be the messiah, and this is where it gets very tricky.
Christians and muslims believe this messiah will be the anti-christ(dajjal)
And there will be numerous wars with Jews, Christians and Muslims, all in the name of the messiah.

So no i dont think Allah/Hashem wanted us to kill each other and therefore he made multiple covenants.

I agree about not killing each other--but I still think the theory of multiple covenants works, and I don't think we all need a uniform notion of the Messiah to stop ourselves from killing each other. Jews don't agree much with each other about the Messiah anyway. For example, lots of liberal Jews don't think there's any one Messiah; we each have to do our own part to perfect the world.

[Skyangel]

I agree about not killing each other--but I still think the theory of multiple covenants works, and I don't think we all need a uniform notion of the Messiah to stop ourselves from killing each other. Jews don't agree much with each other about the Messiah anyway. For example, lots of liberal Jews don't think there's any one Messiah; we each have to do our own part to perfect the world.

If the uniform notion of "messiah" was "One who saved others from death " Then any person who saved someone else from death or refused to kill anyone in the first place would be a "messiah" or "saviour" would they not?

The liberal Jewish concept is also in the bible in the sense that every person needs to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling ( Phil 2:12) and there are many saviors in the world.

Neh 9:27.......................................thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.

Obad 1:21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S.

[Katzpur]

If I understand these words correctly, would a logical interpretation not imply that there are other 'gods' equal to the one issuing these Commandments? Is not the statement "...shall take no other gods before me", a clear indication that,at least according to this 'God', there are other similar beings existent, ie. 'other gods'?

The Bible does mention "gods" with a lower-case "g" in a number of different verses. It even says that 'God" (i.e. the Abrahamic God, who gave the Ten Commandments) is "God of gods." I'd be interested to hear someone who believes that all "gods" mentioned in the scriptures are false gods, explain what that makes our "God." Does that mean He is "God of false gods"?

Paul explained it best when he said, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

He was not denying the existance of beings who are called gods (and this is not only on earth but also in heaven), but he is saying that they are nothing to us. They cannot hear and answer our prayers. They can not heal us when we're sick. They can not save us from the effects of sin. They simply exist and we do not know exactly who they are or what their purpose is. To us, there is only one God.

[Murad]

The Bible does mention "gods" with a lower-case "g" in a number of different verses. It even says that 'God" (i.e. the Abrahamic God, who gave the Ten Commandments) is "God of gods." I'd be interested to hear someone who believes that all "gods" mentioned in the scriptures are false gods, explain what that makes our "God." Does that mean He is "God of false gods"?

Fact of the day:

The Hebrew language does not have any capital letters

[Jrosemary]

The Bible does mention "gods" with a lower-case "g" in a number of different verses. It even says that 'God" (i.e. the Abrahamic God, who gave the Ten Commandments) is "God of gods." I'd be interested to hear someone who believes that all "gods" mentioned in the scriptures are false gods, explain what that makes our "God." Does that mean He is "God of false gods"?

Fact of the day:

The Hebrew language does not have any capital letters

Ditto that. Hebrew just has letters, with no concept of "capital" or "lowercase." When you see a word written with a capital in an English translation, that's just due to the translator's choice. It has nothing to do with the original Hebrew.